Do people really need a book to get along with people?
Short Answer: yes.
Long Answer: Many technically adept people are often misunderstood, uncomfortable around people, and unfamiliar with the rules of social conduct. It has little to do with being sleazy, and more to do with trying to improve your communication skills. What you take as a given is a learned skill for most of us.
Think of the people you've met you you've thought were assholes, arrogant, insecure, and fake. Chances are, they were none of the above; rather they just came off that way because they didn't know how to properly handle the nuances of social behaviour.
> "Hey I've got FrontPage and my brother-in-law says he can do my web pages, so why should I pay you?" The problem with a lot of companies are willing to sacrifice some quality (which they don't really notice unless there's a crisis) for cost.
Plenty of companies do plenty of stupid things. The market exists to weed them out. If it doesn't, perhaps it is your opinion of the service that is out of whack with the market, not the company's!
Many organizations want 12 year olds to build websites, many others are willing to pay six figure salaries to this department. Your goal is to become good enough at what you do that you become attractive to those that pay big bucks.
You do realize that forwarding mail to gmail doesn't necessarily erase it from the corporate email systems right? All they are trying to do is have a mailbox bigger than 250MB.
That's my point. They're paying taxes on "market values" that are nowhere near the actual value of the property. When you live in Rosedale there is no way your property taxes should be calculated on values of $250K-$500K!
>For profit enterprise is rarely cheaper than something done when profit isnt a concern.
I think you're back-asswards on that one.
Profit based systems are always cheaper to run. If you remove the incentive for profit you remove the need for cost savings. Profit based systems + competitive markets = lowest cost. Where that extra savings goes is in the pockets of owners unless there is incentive to give it back to the consumer because of competition.
Now, when you're talking about service, or are removing the competition to create a monopolistic environment, the point becomes much more debatable. I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other that is conclusive in pointing out which method provides better service.
Not every law needs to be written down. In this case, the fact that you need to pay taxes is established by the many people who asked that question before you and received the answer from the court: Yes, you do.
In other words: Case law has established that under the current legal framework, taxes are legal.
What federal businesses? Are you speaking of GST remittance? EVERY business in Canada remits GST (where applicable).
I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea of Federal and Provincial businesses, really. You pay taxes regardless based on your location of business, and not based on who you sell to.
The purchase is being made in the location of your business, and currently, out of province residents are not required to pay taxes to provinces they don't live in.
>you really do not have a grasp of what scale is ibm at.
It's 2007, not 1986. I know exactly what IBM stands for: loss.
- PC Market: LOST
- OS Market: LOST
- Corporate Application Market: LOST
- Business Services Market: LOSING
- Web/Internet Market: COMPLETELY MISSED THIS BOAT
Big Blue isn't all that relevant any more. The whole reason they're even involved in Open Source is that they're trying to leverage R&D that costs them nothing.
They are the GM of the tech sector. They are all but dead in any form of innovation. When you can't innovate, it's only a matter of time until you die. (Which in IBM's case, due to size, may be a while)
The one area where MS DOMINATES is the office market. This is by far one of the best designed and well thought out platforms in use today. For all it's problems, nothing comes close.
Open Office doesn't come close for the average user. Sorry, no dice. If IBM figures it could kill outlook with Lotus notes, it obviously hasn't ever used either.
Take a look at what Google is doing: They're trying to beat MS by shifting the entire way people think about using office. They're also pointing their products at a very unique subset of users.
IBM, as IBM does, is just trying to go head to head with the industry leader. This is the position Corel was in with WP, they lost. This is exactly what Sun tried. They Failed. Hell, IBM has even tried this with Lotus, and failed miserably.
Slashdot Mirror
And lastly I will recite perl poetry.
:-)
It's child abusers like you that need to be locked up for a long time.
More problems for whom? The IT staff or the users?
Having used both myself, I can say without a doubt that Outlook is heaven compared to the hell that is lotus notes.
I think you just might need to take better care of your stuff.
You are only in your 20's once. Keep in mind that if you're still in school you're not really in a position to evaluate the choices you've made.
Make sure that when you are (say, in your 40's at least) you can still evaluate them in the same way you're doing now.
I would talk to those in their 40-50's to get an idea of what you may think when you are that age.
Most people who compete want to do so against the most formidable opponent they can find. You can only better yourself with challenge.
Your response suggests the following:
1. You have a low opinion of yourself, as you have no desire to better yourself.
2. The poster is probably more skilled than you are already.
Do people really need a book to get along with people?
Short Answer: yes.
Long Answer: Many technically adept people are often misunderstood, uncomfortable around people, and unfamiliar with the rules of social conduct. It has little to do with being sleazy, and more to do with trying to improve your communication skills. What you take as a given is a learned skill for most of us.
Think of the people you've met you you've thought were assholes, arrogant, insecure, and fake. Chances are, they were none of the above; rather they just came off that way because they didn't know how to properly handle the nuances of social behaviour.
Aiming to rectify that is never a bad thing.
Damn, I just realized you were being sarcastic. Douh.
Huh? What proprietary format? I've been playing mp3's on my iPod for years.
I think the aluminum in your hat is leaching into your brain a bit.
Um, the third option is that they get archived to another storage device.
How many of those positions though have been reallocated to different roles, or moved into suppliers?
GM still employs about 250K people.
> "Hey I've got FrontPage and my brother-in-law says he can do my web pages, so why should I pay you?" The problem with a lot of companies are willing to sacrifice some quality (which they don't really notice unless there's a crisis) for cost.
Plenty of companies do plenty of stupid things. The market exists to weed them out. If it doesn't, perhaps it is your opinion of the service that is out of whack with the market, not the company's!
Many organizations want 12 year olds to build websites, many others are willing to pay six figure salaries to this department. Your goal is to become good enough at what you do that you become attractive to those that pay big bucks.
You do realize that forwarding mail to gmail doesn't necessarily erase it from the corporate email systems right? All they are trying to do is have a mailbox bigger than 250MB.
It's called the path of least resistance. If IT isn't that path, you can bet that business users will find another one.
As IT your goal should be to be that path where ever possible. Charging 3K for a gig is blatantly ridiculous.
You're "elite" if you can afford to pay $20 a month for hosting?
Get real.
That's my point. They're paying taxes on "market values" that are nowhere near the actual value of the property. When you live in Rosedale there is no way your property taxes should be calculated on values of $250K-$500K!
>The municipalities are screaming for money
Um, no. TORONTO is screaming for money because they want to continue to live in some sort of "my house is only worth $50,000" vacuum.
Haven't been watching the currency markets lately have you?
Actually, it's Toronto's "Government" that's the joke.
Instead of raising taxes on Million dollar homes assessed at $1K, they're bitching about more money from the feds.
>For profit enterprise is rarely cheaper than something done when profit isnt a concern.
I think you're back-asswards on that one.
Profit based systems are always cheaper to run. If you remove the incentive for profit you remove the need for cost savings. Profit based systems + competitive markets = lowest cost. Where that extra savings goes is in the pockets of owners unless there is incentive to give it back to the consumer because of competition.
Now, when you're talking about service, or are removing the competition to create a monopolistic environment, the point becomes much more debatable. I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other that is conclusive in pointing out which method provides better service.
Not every law needs to be written down. In this case, the fact that you need to pay taxes is established by the many people who asked that question before you and received the answer from the court: Yes, you do.
In other words: Case law has established that under the current legal framework, taxes are legal.
What federal businesses? Are you speaking of GST remittance? EVERY business in Canada remits GST (where applicable).
I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea of Federal and Provincial businesses, really. You pay taxes regardless based on your location of business, and not based on who you sell to.
The purchase is being made in the location of your business, and currently, out of province residents are not required to pay taxes to provinces they don't live in.
>you really do not have a grasp of what scale is ibm at.
It's 2007, not 1986. I know exactly what IBM stands for: loss.
- PC Market: LOST
- OS Market: LOST
- Corporate Application Market: LOST
- Business Services Market: LOSING
- Web/Internet Market: COMPLETELY MISSED THIS BOAT
Big Blue isn't all that relevant any more. The whole reason they're even involved in Open Source is that they're trying to leverage R&D that costs them nothing.
They are the GM of the tech sector. They are all but dead in any form of innovation. When you can't innovate, it's only a matter of time until you die. (Which in IBM's case, due to size, may be a while)
Like most advocates, you missed a glaringly obvious option that he has: Just keep using the product he has.
Ha! Hardly.
The one area where MS DOMINATES is the office market. This is by far one of the best designed and well thought out platforms in use today. For all it's problems, nothing comes close.
Open Office doesn't come close for the average user. Sorry, no dice. If IBM figures it could kill outlook with Lotus notes, it obviously hasn't ever used either.
Take a look at what Google is doing: They're trying to beat MS by shifting the entire way people think about using office. They're also pointing their products at a very unique subset of users.
IBM, as IBM does, is just trying to go head to head with the industry leader. This is the position Corel was in with WP, they lost. This is exactly what Sun tried. They Failed. Hell, IBM has even tried this with Lotus, and failed miserably.
MS is a lost case? History is laughing at you.